Here you will find information and ideas relating to how one can be more free in a society that appears to limit freedom of the individual, more and more. To master something, one needs to understand it first. I hope these essays will make you understand both the current system and your relationship to it.

Tax

Monday, 27 June 2016

Tricky Questions

It happens now and then
that we end up in situations where we are accosted by the police or
authorities.

With "accosted"
I do not necessarily mean a physical confrontation. It can be as
simple as an envelope in the mailbox, a phone call or an email, where
you are accused of something and money is demanded for some imagined
benefit, or a construed "crime".

Whether it's a police
officer who stopped you because you did not have a seat-belt on, or a
demand to pay for driving on roads you already paid for and keep
paying for by means of fuel tax, it is now something you need to
deal with.

If you read my previous
post about real people versus the fictitious state, you should
understand what follows.

As children our parent
are controlling us and telling us what we can and cannot do, that
carries on in school and often in work places. As a result, we have
become so accustomed to be guided and controlled by the "authorities”
that we stopped thinking or questioning what they are doing. I see
this as a very deep apathy or brainwashing, and am sure that it was
created intentionally with preschool, school, jobs, taxes, fines,
penalties, etc. etc.

I will probably write a
more comprehensive process one can use to defend oneself when the
“Vultures” come knocking, but for now this may give some ideas of
a simple “defence”. See also the article “Open letter to
Authorities”.

So I'm going to give
you some questions that may be appropriate in different situations.
If nothing else, it can make people think a bit outside the box, or
think a bit more for themselves. I use some of these questions as
icebreakers when I speak with people who are completely unfamiliar
with the freedom movement.

The beauty of using
questions as a way to point out what one means or stands for, is that
a question is relatively innocent, and no proof can be demanded from
someone who is just asking questions. The questioning party is the
one asking for proof. If you assert something, it is more aggressive
and the receiver can also say "prove it" which can be
difficult or even impossible.When you take a position, you
are fixing yourself in one place – kind of. It is easier to attack
someone that holds a fixed position (whether it is a physical spot or
a mental one).

General questions:

Who created me, the
Government, or Nature/God? (If dealing with religious people, use
God)

What created the
Government, human beings or Nature/God?

Who is the most senior,
the Creator or the Creation?

Am I a human being?

Was I born free or a slave?

If I am not a slave,
how can anyone be my master?

Are we not all born
with equal natural or God given rights and freedoms?

If so, how can anyone
claim authority over me?

Can anyone authorise
another to do something that he/she does not have the right to do?

If not, how can the
state which claim its power comes from the people, take a large
portion of the money we earn (tax), threaten us if we do not give
them that money, or decide all kinds of things, such as who we can
and cannot hire or do business with.

In Court:

If you want to address
the issue of "the name"
(See the article "The difference between you and Yourself" for more on your relationship with your artificial Juristic Person):
2When you ask if I'm Mr. JOHN SMITH, do you
ask for the legal/juristic person that I occasionally use to operate
within the fictional, man made, world of laws, contracts, credit,
securities , etc., or do you ask for, the by nature created living
man - John of the family Smith, which I am?"

If they insist that you
identify as JOHN SMITH, say something like: "As I understand it, the
plaintiff is some kind of, artificial entity, created by the State,
and not the living man you are talking with now. If I were to say
that I'm something I'm convinced that I'm not, would I not then be
lying - In a court? Are you trying to make me commit perjury?"

If you do not care
about distinguishing yourself and the legal person, you can use this
approach :

"Am I entitled to a fair
trial?"

"Can I get a fair trial
if there is a conflict of interests in the court?" (Normally the
State, the Police or the Local Council are behind the prosecution and
the judiciary is owned / run by the same gang).

To the prosecutor: "Who
or what are you representing here today?" (Should be the Police, state or
local government)

To the Judge: "Who or
what do you represent here today?" (His employer is the state or
municipality). Write down the answers.

To the Judge: "Hmm, I'm
not trained in the law, but how it is not a conflict of interest if
both you and the prosecutor are working for the government?" (If the
judge counters with "Are you accuse me of a conflict of interest
???" answer politely "Oh no, I just wonder how it is NOT a
conflict of interest. I reserve my conclusions for when I heard the
answer to that question")

"Can I get a fair trial
if I do not understand what is going on here or what is meant by what
people say here?" (If they say No to this question, you can then ask
for clarifications, definitions and explanations for all eternity
until someone gets tired)

"Was the crime which I
am said to have committed, committed in South Africa?"

"The law/regulations I
am accused of having violated, where does that law or regulation
apply?" (in South Africa)

"When you say "South
Africa" what exactly do you mean? do you mean the land mass,
which in common speech is referred to as South Africa, or is it the
fictional man made political or commercial entity which also goes
under the name of SOUTH AFRICA?" (If the answer is landmass, ask if the
landmass wrote the law, you are said to have violated. If they say
the political unit, ask how one can be physically present in
something that only exists in words, thoughts and on paper.)

"On what grounds can
this case be closed?"

"Is a lack of evidence
sufficient basis to close this case?"

"Is a lack of qualified
witnesses sufficient grounds to close the case?"

"Can anyone here present
irrefutable evidence, or someone with first hand experience, who can testify, that I was
physically present in the fictional man made political unit South
Africa, at the time of the alleged crime?"

"Can anyone here present
irrefutable evidence, or someone with first hand experience, who can
testify that I acted as South African citizen / driver / taxpayers / etc.
(These are all positions within the legal construct or corporation
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) and not as a living, by nature created, private man, at
the time of the alleged crime?"
If you get the cop that gave you a ticket on the stand, ask a few innocent questions first, then the ones about where the law or rule applies, then ask if it his opinion that you were present within South Africa at the time of the alleged crime or offence. Then ask him "Legally speaking, what is The Republic of South Africa?" He will probably stumble on that one and most likely the judge or the prosecutor will jump in and declare that the witness is not qualified to answer such a question. You then say "Fine, in that case I want all legal determinations done by this police officer stricken from the record. The Judge will most likely agree to that. Then you qualify that with "Including the legal determinations done in issuing the ticket in question." Check mate!

They usually try to get you to testify against yourself by asking if you did so and so. Reply with something like "Are you trying to make me incriminate myself?" or "Is it not a Maxim of Law that one does not have to bear witness against oneself?" Insist that they produce someone you actually did damage or who's life or property you put in danger, so that you can make good your error privately, before this becomes a matter for a court. If they can't, demand that the matter is dropped.

The questions above
regarding being slave or born free and with equal rights, etc. can
also be used here and followed up with: If I was not born a slave,
mustn't then all interaction with other people or with human
fictions be voluntary and according to mutual agreements?

If so, when, where and
how exactly I was part of a deal in which I knowingly and voluntarily
agreed to submit to myself all laws rules and regulations of the
fictional political construct South Africa?

Just a little word of warning about the Courts, anything can happen there. You are up against people who convict people day in and day out. They have lots of tricks up their sleeve in getting you off balance or to come off your point, and instead answering to their point. My attitude in dealing with them has always been "I am doing this as practice and to learn. I need to learn to feel relaxed in that environment and think on my feet. By placing myself there in trivial matters like traffic violations, I am gaining experience that hopefully will give me a fighting chance, if I ever get dragged in there in handcuffs accused of something serious." Do not assume you will win, just try to do better each time you go there.

Dealing with the
Police:

First, say:

Before we go into
anything else, I just want to inform you that I am right now acting
as a private man/woman who was created on this Earth by Mother
Nature/God, and as a creature of the real tangible natural world, and
I exercise my natural/God-given right to travel freely on my home
planet. Do you understand? (Use your phone or some other device to
record the conversation. Even if the police do not understand what
this means when it comes to “The Law", you have informed him
and a judge will understand what this means, but will probably try to
ignore it.)

Have you observed me
cause anyone any harm or with my actions recently put someone's life
or property in danger?

If not, why did you
stop me?

You will be asked to
identify yourself. If you use a government issued or approved ID, you
have identified yourself as their “legal person” to which all
legislation applies. Better to make your own ID. See the article “A
different ID document” in this blog. Refusing can lead to all kinds
of unpleasant interactions.

If you are recording
the interaction, and you have no own ID to use, say something like “I
have this thing (showing drivers licence or ID card/book), but it is
not mine. It belongs to the Government and it does not identify me,
but rather an entity that I believe represents me in the fictional
world of politics and commerce. I am however not acting in the
capacity of that entity at this very moment, so cannot say that this
is me. I furthermore do not authorise you to identify me as this entity.”

Some questions of law
can also be converted into questions for the police.

Most of us in South Africa will be dealing with traffic cops stopping us for
something we did wrong in the traffic or to see if they can solicit
some business. I have personally found it much easier to be nice
and friendly with them. Ask them some questions if you like to drag
out the conversation. I use this as a distraction when they start
talking about the fines or having you come to the station. It usually
ends up with a small amount of money changing hands or just a
warning. Also bear in mind that this man or woman could one day
be saving your life, by dragging you out of a burning car or taking a
dangerous car off the roads. So treat them with the respect any
fellow man deserves.

And last, but not
least: The Tax Man

Here are some questions
the Tax Office is dying to answer:

Are all people tax
payers?
What makes someone a taxpayer?

Are those who have have
not graduated law school qualified to interpret the Income Tax Act?

If not, how can I be
expected to fill out an Income Tax Return form with information and
then testify in writing that I have done so correctly, when I am
neither qualified to interpret the legislation it is based upon, nor
have the right to do so? How can I do this, when I, legally
speaking, can't understand the law that is the basis of this action?
Is SARS trying to make me commit perjury?

Am I a slave?
If I
am not a slave, then do I not have the right to enjoy the fruits of
my labour?
If I am not a slave, would then not the paying of tax
have to be a voluntary activity?
When, where and how did I
volunteer to pay income tax? When where and how was I informed that
this was a voluntary arrangement?

What proof or witnesses with first hand experience in the matter, do you have that confirms that I am a Taxpayer? Who in your organisation makes the claim that I am a Taxpayer or owe you any tax?

I am going to make a
separate page on this blog regarding tax, where I will have more
information and resources. But this should serve as a start.

I hope you will give
this a try. Practice on family and friends or run such conversations
in your head when you have some mental down time. You should be able
to come up with good questions for different situations.

Another
good response when given a random order is “Why?” and “By what
authority?” then ask more questions as prompted by what the
response will be.

An advice for those who
want to try this. Start by doing this in writing. The worst place to
start is with an irritated policeman or judge. Let the traffic issues
to be until you get really good at this, and you have removed all
implied contracts that you are considered to be bound by as a
motorists.

This list could be much
longer, and I hope you come up with your own questions or change them
to suit the situation you find yourself in.

Much of this has been
inspired by Marc Stevens and Dean Clifford, as well as others. Below
I have posted some videos, which I warmly recommend. They are well
worth a listen and will most likely make this approach more clear
than I have done above.